BPWZ and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of BPWZ's visa. BPWZ's visa had been mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* due to his substantial criminal record, having been sentenced to 42 months imprisonment for armed robbery. BPWZ sought revocation of this cancellation, arguing there was another reason why it should be revoked.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was another reason why the mandatory cancellation of BPWZ's visa should be revoked, considering the primary considerations outlined in Direction No 65, specifically the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children in Australia, and the expectations of the Australian community. The delegate had found that the serious nature of BPWZ's offending, the potential for harm to the Australian community, and community expectations outweighed countervailing considerations, including BPWZ's lengthy residence in Australia, his refugee status, and the best interests of his children.

The Tribunal considered the evidence of BPWZ's remorse, his efforts at rehabilitation, including completing an alcohol and drug course, and his stated intention to abstain from alcohol. It also noted that BPWZ had been in Australia for 10 years and that his offending was driven by alcohol abuse and marital breakdown. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that the delegate had given appropriate weight to the primary considerations, particularly the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal conduct. The Tribunal concluded that the serious nature of the offending, including armed robbery, meant that BPWZ should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia, and that the risk of further offending, while not definitively established, could not be ruled out.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The Tribunal found that the delegate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the primary considerations and countervailing factors, and that the conclusion that the protection of the Australian community outweighed the best interests of BPWZ's children and other considerations was open to the delegate on the evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed BPWZ's application for review.